WTF? Google being told to hand over...

[Vette73]

UPDATE

As some saw the article says there were other search engines that gave up this information without a fight. Being the 2 biggest are Google and yahoo I wanted to know if yahoo was given a subpoena and if so are they fighting it or juts gave information out. Well Mary Osako of yahoo wrote me and basically said they, yahoo, do NOT believe it was a privacy issue and did not fight it. She also said yahoo was ?rigorous defenders of our users' privacy?.This is very disconcerting as if they give this information up so easily will they do so the next time this administration asks for more info? I will ask some more questions and also try to get a copy of what they gave to the Department of Justice.

We are rigorous defenders of our users' privacy. We did not provide any
personal information in response to the Department of Justice's
subpoena. In our opinion, this is not a privacy issue.

 

[teddyv]

You all are aware aren't you that the subpeona calls for no personally identifying information whatsoever?

 

[SMOKE20]

Originally posted by: teddyv
You all are aware aren't you that the subpeona calls for no personally identifying information whatsoever?

You're absolutely right......they were just talking about that. All they are requesting is a list of links that come up when searching for certain things and what links come up with pages containing child porn.

Easy fix......plug in the searches themselves and get the info...... LOL!

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: teddyv
You all are aware aren't you that the subpeona calls for no personally identifying information whatsoever?

You are aware that when you open Pandora?s box there is no closing it right?

This administration has already admitted to warrant less taps in the name of ?terrorism?. Whats to keep them from going, well we saw some things that look like ?terrorism? so NOW we want IP?s, names, e-mails, etc? Bush and republicans just say ?terrorism? and they think that gives them the right to do anything. Sorry but give them an inch and they want a foot.



SMOKE20: this has NOTHING to do with child porn. geeze, how many time has that already been said in this thread?

 

[imported_Condor]

And all this time you libs have been saying that the wiretapping would have been OK if he had just gotten the court order. He got the court order for this and you continue to whine!

 

[teddyv]

Nice lob but back to the original point - you are aware that these subpeonas do not ask for any personal information and have no impact on the security of personal information of Google/MSN/Yahoo users?

I mention it because a lot of folks don't seem to understand that basic point. As for Pandora's Box - I think the CARNIVORE program would be a bit more on point for you (it has been around for a while...)

 

[SMOKE20]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: teddyv
You all are aware aren't you that the subpeona calls for no personally identifying information whatsoever?

You are aware that when you open Pandora?s box there is no closing it right?

This administration has already admitted to warrant less taps in the name of ?terrorism?. Whats to keep them from going, well we saw some things that look like ?terrorism? so NOW we want IP?s, names, e-mails, etc? Bush and republicans just say ?terrorism? and they think that gives them the right to do anything. Sorry but give them an inch and they want a foot.



SMOKE20: this has NOTHING to do with child porn. geeze, how many time has that already been said in this thread?

Whatever........I'm reiterating what was said on CNN and is on all the news links. I'll post them if you want...it's either stated as child porn or porn, but it is in every one of them. And be careful what you blast because certain Dem. senators are also backing this.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Condor
And all this time you libs have been saying that the wiretapping would have been OK if he had just gotten the court order. He got the court order for this and you continue to whine!

No one claimed that the wiretapping would have been "OK". We have clamored that, if there was an actual, legit reason for the tap, then a court order should have been secured as per law!! Big difference.

As for this particular case, the law has already been shot down. It is "settled law" as our newly appointed Chief Justice would say. If they are looking to be the morality police still on this subject, get your rubber-stamp Republican Congress to propose, draft and pass a law that will have a better chance of standing up to the Constitiutional challanges that it will undoubtedly face.

 

[lozina]

Maybe been asked already but don't feel like reading through the whole thread:

How exactly will this data help the government cut down on child porn?

And why don't they just ask google for statistics on specific queries instead of asking for all the data? Sounds like fishing to me. Imagine something like law enforcement asking phone tapping on your whole town to ultimately get the phone conversations of a specific person.

So, be like: "Hey google, give us the data for search queries on 'child porn'". Why can't they do that?

 

[Ferocious]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Trying to revive a law passed in 1998.
.
.
Yeah but the point is this is Clintons baby.

:thumbsdown:

It was passed with good intentions to help protect children from online predators. A flawed law that was revealed as such considering Bush's actions since 9/11 including wanting to get into everyones business.

But for some reason I think you already knew that.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Condor
And all this time you libs have been saying that the wiretapping would have been OK if he had just gotten the court order. He got the court order for this and you continue to whine!

wiretapping = Google logs.. senile logic. zzz

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: teddyv
Nice lob but back to the original point - you are aware that these subpeonas do not ask for any personal information and have no impact on the security of personal information of Google/MSN/Yahoo users?

I mention it because a lot of folks don't seem to understand that basic point. As for Pandora's Box - I think the CARNIVORE program would be a bit more on point for you (it has been around for a while...)

How many times do I have to repeat it.. Your IP ADDRESS = PERSONAL INFO / AND Google knows what IP Address requests a search from their site.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: teddyv
Nice lob but back to the original point - you are aware that these subpeonas do not ask for any personal information and have no impact on the security of personal information of Google/MSN/Yahoo users?

I mention it because a lot of folks don't seem to understand that basic point. As for Pandora's Box - I think the CARNIVORE program would be a bit more on point for you (it has been around for a while...)

How many times do I have to repeat it.. Your IP ADDRESS = PERSONAL INFO / AND Google knows what IP Address requests a search from their site.

Fortunately, its not quite that easy. So Google gives the government my IP address, so what? They'd still have to ask Verizon to find out who uses that IP. A whole other battle there...

Still, this whole thing is stupid. I know people having sex offends the RRR, but doesn't TERRRRAR!!! OH NOES!! keep them occupied enough?

 

[Vette73]

UPDATE2

"Federal investigators have obtained potentially billions of Internet search requests made by users of major websites run by Yahoo Inc., Microsoft Corp. and America Online Inc., raising concerns about how the massive data trove will be used."

 

[teddyv]

How many times do I have to repeat it.. Your IP ADDRESS = PERSONAL INFO / AND Google knows what IP Address requests a search from their site.

Yes that is quite right, though there could be a spirited debate over this when you factor in dial-up users and users who use other wireless networks or have others use their own wireless network.

In regards to this however it is a non-issue as the requesting IP is NOT part of the Subpeona request. I guess I should repeat that in caps.. "REQUESTING IP IS NOT PART OF THE SUBPEONA".

Here is the Motion to Compel, pay particular attention to 4/1-19.

Like I said, a tempest in a teapot.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
UPDATE2

"Federal investigators have obtained potentially billions of Internet search requests made by users of major websites run by Yahoo Inc., Microsoft Corp. and America Online Inc., raising concerns about how the massive data trove will be used."

link? does it say why?

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
UPDATE2

"Federal investigators have obtained potentially billions of Internet search requests made by users of major websites run by Yahoo Inc., Microsoft Corp. and America Online Inc., raising concerns about how the massive data trove will be used."

link? does it say why?

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/200106search_results.htm

"A Justice Department spokesman said the government was not interested in ferreting out names ? only in search trends as part of its efforts to regulate online pornography. But the search-engine subpoenas come amid broader concerns over how much information the government collects and how the data are used."

Thats about it, but with bush and republicans you never know.

 

[fjord]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
UPDATE2

"Federal investigators have obtained potentially billions of Internet search requests made by users of major websites run by Yahoo Inc., Microsoft Corp. and America Online Inc., raising concerns about how the massive data trove will be used."

link? does it say why?

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/200106search_results.htm

"A Justice Department spokesman said the government was not interested in ferreting out names ? only in search trends as part of its efforts to regulate online pornography. But the search-engine subpoenas come amid broader concerns over how much information the government collects and how the data are used."

Thats about it, but with bush and republicans you never know.

"...only in search trends as part of its efforts to regulate online pornography."

They must be picking-up a massive trend on searches for F^ck Bush


Go Figure

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: fjord

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
UPDATE2

"Federal investigators have obtained potentially billions of Internet search requests made by users of major websites run by Yahoo Inc., Microsoft Corp. and America Online Inc., raising concerns about how the massive data trove will be used."

link? does it say why?

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/200106search_results.htm

"A Justice Department spokesman said the government was not interested in ferreting out names ? only in search trends as part of its efforts to regulate online pornography. But the search-engine subpoenas come amid broader concerns over how much information the government collects and how the data are used."

Thats about it, but with bush and republicans you never know.

"...only in search trends as part of its efforts to regulate online pornography."

They must be picking-up a massive trend on searches for F^ck Bush


Go Figure

I have been going over this in my head for a little while now and i fail to see how data mining a search engine for the purposes of "regulating online pornography" is even useful/feasable. I mean, so what if X number of people search for X type of p0rn, nothing can be done to REGULATE that. The issue here, imho is getting all this data and then going behind closed doors and having the data analyzed and disected for whatever reason, under the guise of "regulating online pornography." its like giving the government the green light to analyze how many people go to DNC.com or GOP.com or how many people use Wells Fargo Bank or go to gambling websites. All of THAT information will be there, nothing will be there to help regulate pornography. Maybe you can generate statistics on p0rn searches, but how does that help regulate pornography? maybe you can determine who searches for what type of illegal p0rnography but then I am sure there are legal questions for that particular purpose that would need to be answered by judges and the courts.

If I wanted to make an honest attempt to regulate online pornography, getting this info from google would not be any type of priority. It doesnt seem like it would help. So to me, something doesn't add up.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: fjord

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
UPDATE2

"Federal investigators have obtained potentially billions of Internet search requests made by users of major websites run by Yahoo Inc., Microsoft Corp. and America Online Inc., raising concerns about how the massive data trove will be used."

link? does it say why?

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/200106search_results.htm

"A Justice Department spokesman said the government was not interested in ferreting out names ? only in search trends as part of its efforts to regulate online pornography. But the search-engine subpoenas come amid broader concerns over how much information the government collects and how the data are used."

Thats about it, but with bush and republicans you never know.

"...only in search trends as part of its efforts to regulate online pornography."

They must be picking-up a massive trend on searches for F^ck Bush


Go Figure

I have been going over this in my head for a little while now and i fail to see how data mining a search engine for the purposes of "regulating online pornography" is even useful/feasable. I mean, so what if X number of people search for X type of p0rn, nothing can be done to REGULATE that. The issue here, imho is getting all this data and then going behind closed doors and having the data analyzed and disected for whatever reason, under the guise of "regulating online pornography." its like giving the government the green light to analyze how many people go to DNC.com or GOP.com or how many people use Wells Fargo Bank or go to gambling websites. All of THAT information will be there, nothing will be there to help regulate pornography. Maybe you can generate statistics on p0rn searches, but how does that help regulate pornography? maybe you can determine who searches for what type of illegal p0rnography but then I am sure there are legal questions for that particular purpose that would need to be answered by judges and the courts.

If I wanted to make an honest attempt to regulate online pornography, getting this info from google would not be any type of priority. It doesnt seem like it would help. So to me, something doesn't add up.

Exactly right IMO. They have other uses/intents for that information, if for no other reason then to use it to help them line their own pockets. Go Google!! I hope they fight them right to the bitter end on this one.

 

[imported_redlotus]

Originally posted by: teddyv

How many times do I have to repeat it.. Your IP ADDRESS = PERSONAL INFO / AND Google knows what IP Address requests a search from their site.

Yes that is quite right, though there could be a spirited debate over this when you factor in dial-up users and users who use other wireless networks or have others use their own wireless network.

In regards to this however it is a non-issue as the requesting IP is NOT part of the Subpeona request. I guess I should repeat that in caps.. "REQUESTING IP IS NOT PART OF THE SUBPEONA".

Here is the Motion to Compel, pay particular attention to 4/1-19.

Like I said, a tempest in a teapot.

I'm going to take this one step further and remind everyone that it is illegal to offer as evidence any information found with these searches that is not covered in the subpoena. I don't think that even Alito would be stupid enough to allow this type of evidence to be presented in court.

On the flip side of the coin, I don't understand why the subpoena doesn't just ask for the compiled data rather than the raw data. Why don't they just ask for the percentage of search hits that contain pornographic material when the search criteria are not sexually explisive? (Of course I am just assuming that this is the type of thing that they are looking for) This type of compiled data would be just as helpful, while at the same time, it wouldn't violate any privacy rights.

-red

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Condor
And all this time you libs have been saying that the wiretapping would have been OK if he had just gotten the court order. He got the court order for this and you continue to whine!

wiretapping = Google logs.. senile logic. zzz

Yet, you love Kennedy!

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: teddyv
Nice lob but back to the original point - you are aware that these subpeonas do not ask for any personal information and have no impact on the security of personal information of Google/MSN/Yahoo users?

I mention it because a lot of folks don't seem to understand that basic point. As for Pandora's Box - I think the CARNIVORE program would be a bit more on point for you (it has been around for a while...)

How many times do I have to repeat it.. Your IP ADDRESS = PERSONAL INFO / AND Google knows what IP Address requests a search from their site.

If it is on the net, it is public domain - get over it!

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: teddyv
Nice lob but back to the original point - you are aware that these subpeonas do not ask for any personal information and have no impact on the security of personal information of Google/MSN/Yahoo users?

I mention it because a lot of folks don't seem to understand that basic point. As for Pandora's Box - I think the CARNIVORE program would be a bit more on point for you (it has been around for a while...)

How many times do I have to repeat it.. Your IP ADDRESS = PERSONAL INFO / AND Google knows what IP Address requests a search from their site.

If it is on the net, it is public domain - get over it!

AFAIK googles data on customer queries is not on the net. SO that makes your comment stupid.

if googles data on customer queries was on the net, the government wouldn't be asking for it now would it?

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: teddyv
Nice lob but back to the original point - you are aware that these subpeonas do not ask for any personal information and have no impact on the security of personal information of Google/MSN/Yahoo users?

I mention it because a lot of folks don't seem to understand that basic point. As for Pandora's Box - I think the CARNIVORE program would be a bit more on point for you (it has been around for a while...)

How many times do I have to repeat it.. Your IP ADDRESS = PERSONAL INFO / AND Google knows what IP Address requests a search from their site.

If it is on the net, it is public domain - get over it!

AFAIK googles data on customer queries is not on the net. SO that makes your comment stupid.

if googles data on customer queries was on the net, the government wouldn't be asking for it now would it?

Anything that isn't left flying liberal or Bush hating is stupid to you guys. I'm used to it. They would be asking for it because they want it in a form that can be used. What you guys don't understand and never will is that the Feds simply don't have the IT talent to use it effectively and can't express the need as requirements adequately enough to beltway bandits to derive much good from it. They'll try, they'll put millions back into the economy, but they will mostly tread water. Your paranoia just won't let you accept that.